A mother who was found to have been raped by her ex-partner was left “devastated” after a family court allowed the convicted sex offender to have contact with her child.
Serial rapist Kristoffer Paul Arthur White was given unsupervised access to his daughter on the advice of a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) officer who carried out a risk assessment for the court.
White was found in family court to have raped the boy’s mother three times and also has a prior conviction for raping a stranger in 2008. He was named in a court filing by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
The mother described being horrified when she heard the recommendation that White be allowed to see her primary school-aged daughter.
“It was as if you were being told that Cafcass didn’t believe you, despite the court’s findings,” he said. “A judge said this happened. But it doesn’t matter that he’s a convicted rapist and he raped you – he can spend time with your child. It was earth-shattering.”
The girl’s mother successfully appealed against the decision and later told the court that Cafcass was “an actively harmful organisation that is not fit for purpose”.
In court documents, his legal team said: “A Cafcass officer … was of the opinion that it was safe for a man who dragged a young woman into a garden and raped her twice and then raped her mother three times in this case to have contact with a woman.” [young] “The assault on a girl in an unsupervised environment is a serious indictment of the role and work of Cafcass.”
I find it worrying that two Cafcass employees have come to completely opposite conclusions about security
Cafcass, which was rated “outstanding” by Ofsted this year, said it could not comment because the trial was not yet complete.
Ms White’s access to her child was suspended after the appeal and pending the court’s final decision on contact. The case was referred to another judge and in June this year a guardian ad litem from Cafcass was appointed to represent the girl in relation to a press application for White’s name to be published.
The new guardian told the court that White, a former soldier, was “a danger to women and children and it was not safe for him to have any contact or relationship with his child”. They also supported the mother’s new application to have parental responsibility for the child removed.
The mother said: “I find it worrying that two Cafcass staff have come to completely opposite conclusions about safety. It highlights the lack of systems in place and the lack of awareness of the impact of domestic violence and sexual assault.”
Now TBIJ and Observer The court can reveal more detailed details of the case after it makes a transparency order allowing the mother to tell what happened. The court found that prior to the parents’ separation, the mother and child were living in an environment of fear and intimidation due to White’s coercive and aggressive behaviour.
Following a fact-finding hearing in December 2022, Judge Sophie Harrison made various other serious findings following an application by the father to change his visitation arrangements with his daughter.
It was stated that during the relationship between her mother and father, the father raped the mother three times, and that the father sexually assaulted the mother once after the relationship ended.
In family court, findings are made by the judge on the balance of probability, while in criminal court, convictions are made on a standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
An officer from Cafcass prepared a report in April 2023 on the extent and type of contact the child should have with his father.
Harrison said the officer was “aware of the serious nature of the court’s findings and was concerned that the father did not clearly accept those findings.”
My self-esteem was destroyed by my father. He systematically destroyed every recognizable part of myself.
However, Cafcass initially suggested that communication could start from a supported contact centre and progress to the community. Then, if no difficulties were experienced, nightly communication could occur after at least a year.
Then in June 2023, Harrison issued a temporary order that White could have unsupervised contact with her child in the community.
At the final hearing to decide the level of contact on February 12 this year, the Cafcass officer changed his position to say that contact should not have occurred at White’s home or overnight unless there was an “unaddressed risk of domestic violence”. He was also advised to complete a domestic violence perpetrator programme (DAPP).
In his ruling, Harrison said the Cafcass officer was a “credible, child-focused and sensible witness” and did not encourage “contact at all costs” as suggested by the mother’s lawyer Elisabeth Traugott.
The judge said the officer recognized both the serious findings against White and the child’s “positive relationship and attachment to her father.” He said communication notes showed the father’s behavior toward his daughter was “loving, patient and child-focused.”
The judge said he was concerned that the mother’s bid to stop or significantly reduce her daughter’s contact with White would result in the child being deprived of a regular and loving presence in her life.
Harrison made a final order for unsupervised community contact between White and her daughter, and said she must complete a DAPP before applying to increase her contact. However, that decision was overturned on appeal following a hearing before Justice Greenfield in April.
The mother was represented by barrister Charlotte Proudman, who told the court Harrison’s order did not adequately address the risk a convicted rapist posed to his former partner and her children.
White, through her attorney, said she only “reluctantly” accepted the court’s findings at the last hearing, saying previously that the mother lied about the allegations and did not complete DAPP.
The mother claimed that the decision to have contact was “not safe” and was made despite the father’s “extremely serious risk profile”.
The court was reminded that White had served four years of a nine-year sentence for raping a teenager in 2008. According to press reports, White dragged the 19-year-old girl into a garden, threatened to kill her and raped her twice. He was identified through DNA two years after the attack and was found guilty in 2011. He denied the offence at the time and continued to do so during the family trial.
Responding to the mother’s grounds of appeal, White said that until the latest hearing, unsupervised community contact with her daughter had been occurring without incident for seven months. White’s barrister, Thomas Pye, said the suggestion to stop contact would cause the girl “discomfort and distress” and deprive her of a loving presence in her life. He said the Cafcass officer noted that the parents accepted that the daughter enjoyed contact and had a good relationship with her father.
Greenfield allowed the appeal on two grounds, including that District Judge Harrison – in his failure to grant leave to give evidence to the parties – did not give sufficient weight to the mother’s written statements describing the traumatic impact of the father’s abuse and the court proceedings. The issue of contact will be determined by the court at a later date.
I supported the app because [White] is a risk to women, children and the wider community
The mother told the court that the process of giving evidence about multiple rapes without any legal representation until the final hearing was very difficult.
In her final statement to the court, she said: “My father destroyed my self-esteem. He systematically destroyed every recognisable part of myself… The abuse I suffered affected every aspect of my life.”
According to court documents, the woman, who left work with suicidal thoughts, experienced intense anxiety when she learned her daughter would have unsupervised contact with White.
The mother supported a joint application by TBIJ and freelance journalist Suzanne Martin to name White in connection with the family case.
He explained: “I supported the application because [White] “It is a risk to women, children and the wider community.”
Judge Moradifar said the facts of the case showed “a compelling public interest argument that the abuser hides behind his or a child’s rights to avoid public recognition.”
In a decision released in July, it ruled that White’s name should be disclosed because his “established pattern of conduct” could put people not involved in the case at risk of harm.
The newly appointed guardian accepted that the release of the sex offender’s name was based on public safety grounds but opposed the application, arguing that public knowledge of the criminal conviction was already available and further disclosure was unnecessary.
The custody owner’s refusal to have White’s name disclosed led the mother to submit to the court that Cafcass had given the father the authority to stand up for his child’s rights and had failed to consider the child’s actions and the consequences for his victims.
His lawyers Proudman and Traugott wrote in court documents: “Cafcass’s position has changed from supporting contact with a rapist father at all costs to supporting no contact at all only if there is a successful objection. […] and the trial was subject to media oversight and a transparency mandate.”
Oliver Wraight, the barrister representing the children’s guardian, said he had significant issues with a number of points made on the mother’s behalf, including that Cafcass was a “harmful organisation” and that the guardian was “shielding a rapist”.
He told the court: “Cafcass is not an amorphous body that puts forward a single view. Parents give their views. There is a legitimate public debate about whether children should have contact with physically or sexually violent fathers.”